| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, Alon Goldshuv <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Date: | 2005-06-01 14:01:06 |
| Message-ID: | 13447.1117634466@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 16:34 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> There are some other arguments in favour of a LOAD command.... Alon?
>>
>> We already have LOAD, so you'll have to choose something else :)
> Its annoying, I grant you. :-)
> LOAD 'library' would still need to be the default.
> LOAD LIBRARY 'library' would be the new recommended usage.
> LOAD DATA... would be the new command... with most other options hanging
> off of that. There's no problem with that, since that is then the same
> as Oracle syntax for the load utility.
Uh, what's wrong with adding an option to COPY? Not like it hasn't got
a ton of 'em already. The Oracle-compatibility angle doesn't interest
me at all, mainly because I find it highly improbable that we'd be exactly
compatible anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-01 14:05:13 | Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-01 13:58:53 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |